EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding heights-Look vs. Salomon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding heights-Look vs. Salomon

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Hi guys. I'm trying to compare the binding heights (distance from boot sole to topsheet) between Look and Salomon bindings. I bought some 912ti's for my new mantras but I'm wondering if they have enough lift? The 912s are 24mm high, but I can't find the specs for the Look bindings w/ or w/o lifter. I know that the Look lifter adds 6mm, but what's the total height?

For a balance between on and off-piste performance, what would be a good binding height?

thanks.
post #2 of 15
Considering how wide the Mantras are I don't think you need to be concerned about the binding height. Boot-out shouldn't be a problem with a 94 mm waist.
post #3 of 15
I love these questions... gear geek to the rescue...

Here are the measurements for the Look P12 series from last year (2006 has changed the design enough that I wouldn't trust these numbers if you're looking at this years Looks).

Heel = 20mm
Heel Shim (used without lifter) = 1mm
Toe = 15mm
Lifter = 6mm (this is the net lift - the lifter is actually 10mm high)

So you're looking at a P12 lifter with 26mm at the heel and 21mm at the toe (5mm delta).

A regular P12 (no lifter, like the Jib models) would be 21mm at the heel 15mm at the toe.

Note that a cool "trick" that you can do with the Looks to eliminate the delta angle is to use the lifter only at the toe and use the shim at the heel. This results in a 21mm heel and a 21mm toe (0mm delta). I use this setup on my Machete FBs for a "deep snow" setup and love the elimination of the additional ramp angle introduced by most bindings.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
my main concern wasn't boot out, but rather getting reasonable carving performance without hindering off-piste ability.
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I love these questions... gear geek to the rescue...

Here are the measurements for the Look P12 series from last year (2006 has changed the design enough that I wouldn't trust these numbers if you're looking at this years Looks).

Heel = 20mm
Heel Shim (used without lifter) = 1mm
Toe = 15mm
Lifter = 6mm (this is the net lift - the lifter is actually 10mm high)

So you're looking at a P12 lifter with 26mm at the heel and 21mm at the toe (5mm delta).

A regular P12 (no lifter, like the Jib models) would be 21mm at the heel 15mm at the toe.

Note that a cool "trick" that you can do with the Looks to eliminate the delta angle is to use the lifter only at the toe and use the shim at the heel. This results in a 21mm heel and a 21mm toe (0mm delta). I use this setup on my Machete FBs for a "deep snow" setup and love the elimination of the additional ramp angle introduced by most bindings.
thanks. looks like the 912s fit right between those numbers. Who would notice 2mm anyway? Since most people on fat skis don't seem to go beyond the Look w/ lifter height of 26mm, then I should be fine at 24mm.
post #6 of 15
Hey Noodler, have you figured out the lift height with Fritschi? I feel like I'm way high off the ski on these. As I understand it, the less lift on a wide ski, the better. Unavoidable on our AT bindings.
post #7 of 15
I don't agree with the philosophy that lift will negatively effect powder skiing performance. If you search the threads you'll see that we've debated this multiple times. I believe that delta angle has much more of an impact than overall lift (as long as the lift isn't excessive). I agree that having some lift will make a wider ski more manageable when dealing with groomers. I threw a Rossi T-Plate under my Look P12 Jibs on my Stockli Stormrider DP setup to get an additional 10mm of lift.

Note that I am by no means a powder expert. I still haven't broken into double digits for the number of days I've had in powder above my knees (I've only been in CO for 5 years).
post #8 of 15
Oh, and I don't have any Fritschi bindings to measure, but I sure am interested in building an AT setup. I just need to hook up with some BC skiers here in CO. No one I hang with does the "earn yer turns" thing.
post #9 of 15
I thought the goal was the least amount of binding height on fat skis. That's why you don't see fat skis with built-in binding systems. Do most people use Mantras to carve?
post #10 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowphat
I thought the goal was the least amount of binding height on fat skis. That's why you don't see fat skis with built-in binding systems. Do most people use Mantras to carve?
No, you're right. But i'm trying to have a 1 ski quiver, so there's always gonna be some compromise. I just want a binding with an average height since I don't have enough experience to say exactly how high or low I'd like it. This is gonna be my fatest pair of skis so far. I can't wait to ski 'em.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowphat
I thought the goal was the least amount of binding height on fat skis. That's why you don't see fat skis with built-in binding systems. Do most people use Mantras to carve?
You seem to be implying that binding/ski systems necessarily equate to more lift as opposed to non-system bindings. If you actually dig into the data you'll see that you can't really make this assumption. In fact, most of the ski "system" binding setups actually run lower than most of the non-system stuff in my quiver.

I think that the lack of binding systems in the freeride and big mountain skis has more to do with the target markets and marketing issues. System bindings have been taking over more and more of ski makers lines every season - somebody is going to put one on a "fatty" eventually.

I'm not going to get into the debate about binding lift on fat skis - we've done that one to death.
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I think that the lack of binding systems in the freeride and big mountain skis has more to do with the target markets and marketing issues. System bindings have been taking over more and more of ski makers lines every season - somebody is going to put one on a "fatty" eventually.
Atomic tried to make a couple of their fat skis Atomic binding only with the bolt on plate for the Big Daddy and Sugar Daddy. Obviously, the market responded very poorly (people pulling plates, milling blank plates, etc), and they've gone back to flat skis. People who typically ski fat skis are very selective about their bindings, and also are more likely to run AT bindings on them. There's enough competition (and enough good skis) out there, that people will simply not buy an Atomic product for a touring setup when they can buy another brand with similar performance. In the end, not only are system bindings a terrible idea in general, they're an even worse idea on fat skis.

The quickest way for K2 to cut their fat ski sales by over 50% would be to integrate a Marker binding on them. You couldn't pay me (or thousands of other people) to ski those.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Hey Noodler, have you figured out the lift height with Fritschi? I feel like I'm way high off the ski on these.
I´m not Noodler but I have the data.

Rave Easyride and Poweride: 35mm
Rave Freeride: 41mm
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I don't agree with the philosophy that lift will negatively effect powder skiing performance. If you search the threads you'll see that we've debated this multiple times. I believe that delta angle has much more of an impact than overall lift (as long as the lift isn't excessive). I agree that having some lift will make a wider ski more manageable when dealing with groomers. I threw a Rossi T-Plate under my Look P12 Jibs on my Stockli Stormrider DP setup to get an additional 10mm of lift.

Note that I am by no means a powder expert. I still haven't broken into double digits for the number of days I've had in powder above my knees (I've only been in CO for 5 years).
I agree with Noodler.

lift has been a bugaboo since the first Derbyflex. at that time lifts were to prevent "boot-out" and the Derbyflex had an additional damping component that helped soothe the tired racer's legs.

the thing about lift is what it does to your feel for the ski/snow interface, and more particularly, whether it creates a different feel than what you traditionally have used. if in the past you've skied on binders that have you close to the ski's topsheet, you will probably feel like you're skiing on a skyscraper, far above the snow.

you can get over this feeling by continuing to use the skis.

more important is the notion of ramp angle established between toe and heel points.

I discovered at ESA-Big Sky that the 5mm additional heel height in the Look/Rossi pivot binders puts me in an ideal fore/aft balance position. I notice this when I ski on other skis that are neutral (no heel height advantage) because then, I feel like I have to exaggerate my forward weighting and pressure to get the shovels to engage.

when I'm at the proper ramp angle, I ski beneath my feet. not with exaggerated fore-weighting.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
I´m not Noodler but I have the data.

Rave Easyride and Poweride: 35mm
Rave Freeride: 41mm
I just measured Fritschi Freeride at 38 mm front, 40 mm rear. That is with the vibram sole in. Relatively high, but neutral fore/aft. Thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding heights-Look vs. Salomon